DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment with a Beam Splitter in a Quantum Superposition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment with a Beam Splitter in a Quantum Superposition week ending PRL 115, 260403 (2015) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 31 DECEMBER 2015 Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment with a Beam Splitter in a Quantum Superposition Shi-Biao Zheng,1,* You-Peng Zhong,2 Kai Xu,2 Qi-Jue Wang,2 H. Wang,2 Li-Tuo Shen,1 Chui-Ping Yang,3 † ‡ John M. Martinis,4, A. N. Cleland,5, and Si-Yuan Han6,7 1Department of Physics, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China 2Department of Physics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China 3Department of Physics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, China 4Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA 5Institute for Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA 6Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA 7Beijing National Laboratory for Condensed Matter Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China (Received 11 August 2015; published 28 December 2015) A quantum system can behave as a wave or as a particle, depending on the experimental arrangement. When, for example, measuring a photon using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the photon acts as a wave if the second beam splitter is inserted, but as a particle if this beam splitter is omitted. The decision of whether or not to insert this beam splitter can be made after the photon has entered the interferometer, as in Wheeler’s famous delayed-choice thought experiment. In recent quantum versions of this experiment, this decision is controlled by a quantum ancilla, while the beam splitter is itself still a classical object. Here, we propose and realize a variant of the quantum delayed-choice experiment. We configure a superconducting quantum circuit as a Ramsey interferometer, where the element that acts as the first beam splitter can be put in a quantum superposition of its active and inactive states, as verified by the negative values of its Wigner function. We show that this enables the wave and particle aspects of the system to be observed with a single setup, without involving an ancilla that is not itself a part of the interferometer. We also study the transition of this quantum beam splitter from a quantum to a classical object due to decoherence, as observed by monitoring the interferometer output. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.260403 PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 42.50.Dv, 42.50.St The wave-particle duality is one of the fundamental the photon has passed through BS1. Therefore, the photon mysteries that lie at the heart of quantum mechanics. could not “know” in advance which behavior it should However, these two incompatible aspects cannot be observed exhibit. Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment has been simultaneously, as captured by Bohr’s principle of comple- demonstrated previously [9–13], where the spacelike sep- mentarity [1–5]: Particlelike versus wavelike outcomes are aration between the setup selection and the photon entry selected by experimental arrangements that are mutually into the interferometer was achieved in Ref. [12]. Recently, exclusive. This is well illustrated by the Mach-Zehnder a quantum version of the delayed-choice experiment was interferometer, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Split by the first beam suggested [14] in which the action of BS2 is controlled by a splitter (BS1), a photon travels along two paths, 0 and 1. quantum ancilla. The scheme is illustrated in Fig. 1(b), The relative phase θ between the quantum states associated where each beam splitter is replaced by a Hadamard with these paths is tunable. In the presence of the second operation H, and the second Hadamard operation is condi- beam splitter (BS2), the two paths are recombined and the tionally applied following the phase shift θ. The quantum probability for detecting the photon in the detector D0 or D1 system exhibits wavelike behavior if the ancilla is in its j1i is a sinusoidal function of θ exhibiting wavelike interference state and the second Hadamard is applied; if the ancilla is fringes. On the other hand, in the absence of BS2,the instead in j0i, the second Hadamard is not performed, and experiment reveals which path the photon followed, and the system displays particlelike behavior. When the ancilla the photon is detected in one or the other detector with is prepared in a superposition of j0i and j1i, the result is a equal probability 1=2, thus behaving as a particle. superposition of wavelike and particlelike states, entangled One can argue that the behavior of the photon is with the ancilla [14]. This clearly precludes the system predetermined by the experimental arrangement, where knowing in advance which setup will be selected; the the presence or absence of the second beam splitter affects quantum superposition effectively replaces the need for the photon prior to its entering the interferometer. The Wheeler’s spacelike separation of the photon entry into the possibility of such a causal link is precluded in Wheeler’s interferometer and the measurement selection. Instead, the delayed-choice experiment [6–8], in which the observer wavelike and particlelike behaviors are postselected by randomly chooses whether to insert BS2, and thus whether measuring the ancilla in its ðj0i; j1iÞ basis. This allows the to perform an interference or a which-path experiment, after complementary wave and particle behaviors to emerge 0031-9007=15=115(26)=260403(6) 260403-1 © 2015 American Physical Society week ending PRL 115, 260403 (2015) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 31 DECEMBER 2015 (a) inequality; we note that these measurements are subject to the fair-sampling assumption: that is, the large number of coincident photon pairs that fail to be registered are assumed to obey the same statistics as those that are recorded. Here, we theoretically propose and experimentally (b) implement a variant of the quantum delayed-choice experi- ment, using a superconducting Ramsey interferometer and the process shown in Fig. 1(c); we note that the Ramsey and Mach-Zehnder interferometers are physically different, but they actually implement the same quantum circuit [20].In (c) our interferometer, a two-level quantum system (a super- conducting qubit) with ground state jgi and excited state jei, which correspond to the paths 0 and 1 in the optical interferometer, is subjected to two Ramsey rotations, R1 and R2ðθÞ, which correspond to the two beam splitters ’ FIG. 1 (color online). (a) Schematic of Wheeler s delayed- of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer but are induced by choice thought experiment. A photon’s state is transformed by the microwave fields. The tunable phase shift θ between the first beam splitter, BS1, into a superposition of two paths, 0 and 1, followed by a tunable phase shift θ. While the photon is inside the two interfering paths is incorporated into the microwave ðθÞ interferometer, the observer decides whether or not to insert a field that produces R2 . R1 is generated by the microwave second beam splitter, BS2, thereby delaying the decision of field stored in a superconducting resonator. If the resonator whether to measure an interference pattern (wave aspect) or to is “filled” by exciting it into the appropriate microwave obtain which-path information (particle aspect), as revealed by the coherent state jαi, the qubit will undergo a Hadamard probability of detecting the photon at detector D0 and D1 as a transformation by interacting with this field. This rotates function of θ. (b) Schematic of the quantum delayed-choice the input state from jgi into a superposition of jgi and jei, experiment using a controlling quantum ancilla. The effect of producing two paths in the Hilbert space, as with the first each beam splitter is represented by a Hadamard operation, H, beam splitter in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. These with the relative phase shift θ occurring in between these two two paths are then recombined by R2ðθÞ, and that recombi- operations. The second Hadamard is controlled by the ancilla, θ which can be prepared in a superposition state, allowing simulta- nation results in -dependent wavelike interference fringes neous preparation of the wave and particle aspects of the test in the probabilities of jgi and jei. If the resonator is instead system. (c) Schematic of the delayed-choice experiment, imple- “empty,” i.e., in its ground state j0i, no rotation R1 occurs, mented with a superconducting beam splitter that is put into a and the qubit remains in jgi. The second rotation R2ðθÞ then catlike superposition state. The test qubit, initially in the ground produces a superposition of jgi and jei, but the probabilities state jgi, is subjected to two operations, R1 and R2ðθÞ, equivalent of jgi and jei have no θ dependence, corresponding to in combination to the two Hadamard operations plus the phase particlelike behavior. We note that the required conditional θ shift . R1 is implemented (BS1 active) when the test qubit interacts dynamics cannot be realized when the order of the two with a superconducting resonator occupied by a classical coherent jαi ðθÞ rotations in Fig. 1(c) is inverted: To realize the resonator- field . R2 is implemented by a classical microwave pulse. j i The final probability of measuring the qubit in the ground state jgi state-dependent rotation, the qubit should be in the state g ’ or excited state jei, for active BS1, then depends on the relative before interaction with the resonator, so that the resonator s phase θ, thus exhibiting Ramsey interference. When ground state j0i cannot induce any rotation on the qubit; the superconducting resonator is instead in the ground state j0i, however, when the unconditional rotation R2ðθÞ is applied R1 is not implemented (BS1 inactive), and no θ-dependent Ramsey first, before the qubit-resonator interaction the qubit has a interference occurs. The wave and particle aspects of the qubit can probability of 1=2 to be excited by R2ðθÞ to the state jei,to be superposed by preparing the resonator in a quantum super- which the resonator’s ground state can produce a rotation jαi j0i position of filled and empty states, generating an output through the vacuum Rabi oscillation [21].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Configuration Interaction Study of the Ground State of the Carbon Atom
    Configuration Interaction Study of the Ground State of the Carbon Atom María Belén Ruiz* and Robert Tröger Department of Theoretical Chemistry Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg Egerlandstraße 3, 91054 Erlangen, Germany In print in Advances Quantum Chemistry Vol. 76: Novel Electronic Structure Theory: General Innovations and Strongly Correlated Systems 30th July 2017 Abstract Configuration Interaction (CI) calculations on the ground state of the C atom are carried out using a small basis set of Slater orbitals [7s6p5d4f3g]. The configurations are selected according to their contribution to the total energy. One set of exponents is optimized for the whole expansion. Using some computational techniques to increase efficiency, our computer program is able to perform partially-parallelized runs of 1000 configuration term functions within a few minutes. With the optimized computer programme we were able to test a large number of configuration types and chose the most important ones. The energy of the 3P ground state of carbon atom with a wave function of angular momentum L=1 and ML=0 and spin eigenfunction with S=1 and MS=0 leads to -37.83526523 h, which is millihartree accurate. We discuss the state of the art in the determination of the ground state of the carbon atom and give an outlook about the complex spectra of this atom and its low-lying states. Keywords: Carbon atom; Configuration Interaction; Slater orbitals; Ground state *Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction The spectrum of the isolated carbon atom is the most complex one among the light atoms. The ground state of carbon atom is a triplet 3P state and its low-lying excited states are singlet 1D, 1S and 1P states, more stable than the corresponding triplet excited ones 3D and 3S, against the Hund’s rule of maximal multiplicity.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Field Theory*
    Quantum Field Theory y Frank Wilczek Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Science, Olden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540 I discuss the general principles underlying quantum eld theory, and attempt to identify its most profound consequences. The deep est of these consequences result from the in nite number of degrees of freedom invoked to implement lo cality.Imention a few of its most striking successes, b oth achieved and prosp ective. Possible limitation s of quantum eld theory are viewed in the light of its history. I. SURVEY Quantum eld theory is the framework in which the regnant theories of the electroweak and strong interactions, which together form the Standard Mo del, are formulated. Quantum electro dynamics (QED), b esides providing a com- plete foundation for atomic physics and chemistry, has supp orted calculations of physical quantities with unparalleled precision. The exp erimentally measured value of the magnetic dip ole moment of the muon, 11 (g 2) = 233 184 600 (1680) 10 ; (1) exp: for example, should b e compared with the theoretical prediction 11 (g 2) = 233 183 478 (308) 10 : (2) theor: In quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) we cannot, for the forseeable future, aspire to to comparable accuracy.Yet QCD provides di erent, and at least equally impressive, evidence for the validity of the basic principles of quantum eld theory. Indeed, b ecause in QCD the interactions are stronger, QCD manifests a wider variety of phenomena characteristic of quantum eld theory. These include esp ecially running of the e ective coupling with distance or energy scale and the phenomenon of con nement.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Li
    This guide is designed to show someone with a basic undergraduate background in physics how to perform a presentation on the topic Introduction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 1 of holography and how to demonstrate the making of a hologram. Although holography can be a very complex area of study, the material has been explained mostly qualitatively, so as to match the target audience’s background in mathematics and physics. The List of Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 2 target audience high school students in grades 9‐ 11 and so limited to no previous knowledge on optics, lasers or holograms is assumed. The presentation and demonstrations will teach the students about basic optics such as reflection, refraction, and interference. The Preparation for presentation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 2‐3 students will learn the basic physics of lasers, with a focus on the apparatus set up of a laser and the necessity of a coherent light source for the creation of interference patterns. The last part of the presentation covers the two most popular types of holographic Presentation guideline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 3‐7 production apparatuses which are reflection and transmission holograms respectively. Some historical background and fun facts are also included throughout the presentation. The module ends Demonstration guideline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 7 with a live demonstration on how to make a hologram to give the students some exposure to the care that must be taken in experiments and to give them a taste of what higher level physics laboratories can include. The following flow chart summarizes the References ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 8 basics of how the presentation will flow. 1 First and foremost, you should find out the location you’ll Laptop be presenting at and when the presentation will take place.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the LOCALIZED QUANTUM VACUUM FIELD D. Dragoman
    1 THE LOCALIZED QUANTUM VACUUM FIELD D. Dragoman – Univ. Bucharest, Physics Dept., P.O. Box MG-11, 077125 Bucharest, Romania, e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT A model for the localized quantum vacuum is proposed in which the zero-point energy of the quantum electromagnetic field originates in energy- and momentum-conserving transitions of material systems from their ground state to an unstable state with negative energy. These transitions are accompanied by emissions and re-absorptions of real photons, which generate a localized quantum vacuum in the neighborhood of material systems. The model could help resolve the cosmological paradox associated to the zero-point energy of electromagnetic fields, while reclaiming quantum effects associated with quantum vacuum such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift; it also offers a new insight into the Zitterbewegung of material particles. 2 INTRODUCTION The zero-point energy (ZPE) of the quantum electromagnetic field is at the same time an indispensable concept of quantum field theory and a controversial issue (see [1] for an excellent review of the subject). The need of the ZPE has been recognized from the beginning of quantum theory of radiation, since only the inclusion of this term assures no first-order temperature-independent correction to the average energy of an oscillator in thermal equilibrium with blackbody radiation in the classical limit of high temperatures. A more rigorous introduction of the ZPE stems from the treatment of the electromagnetic radiation as an ensemble of harmonic quantum oscillators. Then, the total energy of the quantum electromagnetic field is given by E = åk,s hwk (nks +1/ 2) , where nks is the number of quantum oscillators (photons) in the (k,s) mode that propagate with wavevector k and frequency wk =| k | c = kc , and are characterized by the polarization index s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle*
    OpenStax-CNX module: m58578 1 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle* OpenStax This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 Abstract By the end of this section, you will be able to: • Describe the physical meaning of the position-momentum uncertainty relation • Explain the origins of the uncertainty principle in quantum theory • Describe the physical meaning of the energy-time uncertainty relation Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a key principle in quantum mechanics. Very roughly, it states that if we know everything about where a particle is located (the uncertainty of position is small), we know nothing about its momentum (the uncertainty of momentum is large), and vice versa. Versions of the uncertainty principle also exist for other quantities as well, such as energy and time. We discuss the momentum-position and energy-time uncertainty principles separately. 1 Momentum and Position To illustrate the momentum-position uncertainty principle, consider a free particle that moves along the x- direction. The particle moves with a constant velocity u and momentum p = mu. According to de Broglie's relations, p = }k and E = }!. As discussed in the previous section, the wave function for this particle is given by −i(! t−k x) −i ! t i k x k (x; t) = A [cos (! t − k x) − i sin (! t − k x)] = Ae = Ae e (1) 2 2 and the probability density j k (x; t) j = A is uniform and independent of time. The particle is equally likely to be found anywhere along the x-axis but has denite values of wavelength and wave number, and therefore momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 the Variational Principle
    8 The Variational Principle 8.1 Approximate solution of the Schroedinger equation If we can’t find an analytic solution to the Schroedinger equation, a trick known as the varia- tional principle allows us to estimate the energy of the ground state of a system. We choose an unnormalized trial function Φ(an) which depends on some variational parameters, an and minimise hΦ|Hˆ |Φi E[a ] = n hΦ|Φi with respect to those parameters. This gives an approximation to the wavefunction whose accuracy depends on the number of parameters and the clever choice of Φ(an). For more rigorous treatments, a set of basis functions with expansion coefficients an may be used. The proof is as follows, if we expand the normalised wavefunction 1/2 |φ(an)i = Φ(an)/hΦ(an)|Φ(an)i in terms of the true (unknown) eigenbasis |ii of the Hamiltonian, then its energy is X X X ˆ 2 2 E[an] = hφ|iihi|H|jihj|φi = |hφ|ii| Ei = E0 + |hφ|ii| (Ei − E0) ≥ E0 ij i i ˆ where the true (unknown) ground state of the system is defined by H|i0i = E0|i0i. The inequality 2 arises because both |hφ|ii| and (Ei − E0) must be positive. Thus the lower we can make the energy E[ai], the closer it will be to the actual ground state energy, and the closer |φi will be to |i0i. If the trial wavefunction consists of a complete basis set of orthonormal functions |χ i, each P i multiplied by ai: |φi = i ai|χii then the solution is exact and we just have the usual trick of expanding a wavefunction in a basis set.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Recombined Beams Frank Rioux Emeritus Professor of Chemistry CSB|SJU
    The Paradox of Recombined Beams Frank Rioux Emeritus Professor of Chemistry CSB|SJU French and Taylor illustrate the paradox of the recombined beams with a series of experiments using polarized photons in section 7-3 in An Introduction to Quantum Physics. It is my opinion that it is easier to demonstrate this so-called paradox using photons, beam splitters and mirrors. Of course, the paradox is only apparent, being created by thinking classically about a quantum phenomenon. Single photons illuminate a 50-50 beam splitter and mirrors direct the photons to detectors D1 and D2. For a statistically meaningful number of observations, it is found that 50% of the photons are detected at D1 and 50% at D2. One might, therefore, conclude that each photon is either transmitted or reflected at the beam splitter. Recombining the paths with a second beam splitter creates a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI). On the basis of the previous reasoning one might expect again that each detector would fire 50% of the time. Half of the photons are in the T branch of the interferometer and they have a 50% chance of being transmitted to D2 and a 50% chance of being reflected to D1 at the second beam splitter. The same reasoning applies to the photons in the R branch. However what is observed in an equal arm MZI is that all the photons arrive at D1. The reasoning used to explain the first result is plausible, but we see that the attempt to extend it to the MZI shown below leads to a contradiction with actual experimental results.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Experimental Progress of Fractional Quantum Hall Effect: 5/2 Filling State and Graphene
    Recent Experimental Progress of Fractional Quantum Hall Effect: 5/2 Filling State and Graphene X. Lin, R. R. Du and X. C. Xie International Center for Quantum Materials, Peking University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China 100871 ABSTRACT The phenomenon of fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) was first experimentally observed 33 years ago. FQHE involves strong Coulomb interactions and correlations among the electrons, which leads to quasiparticles with fractional elementary charge. Three decades later, the field of FQHE is still active with new discoveries and new technical developments. A significant portion of attention in FQHE has been dedicated to filling factor 5/2 state, for its unusual even denominator and possible application in topological quantum computation. Traditionally FQHE has been observed in high mobility GaAs heterostructure, but new materials such as graphene also open up a new area for FQHE. This review focuses on recent progress of FQHE at 5/2 state and FQHE in graphene. Keywords: Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, Experimental Progress, 5/2 State, Graphene measured through the temperature dependence of I. INTRODUCTION longitudinal resistance. Due to the confinement potential of a realistic 2DEG sample, the gapped QHE A. Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) state has chiral edge current at boundaries. Hall effect was discovered in 1879, in which a Hall voltage perpendicular to the current is produced across a conductor under a magnetic field. Although Hall effect was discovered in a sheet of gold leaf by Edwin Hall, Hall effect does not require two-dimensional condition. In 1980, quantum Hall effect was observed in two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) system [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics by Numerical Simulation of Path Integral
    Quantum Mechanics by Numerical Simulation of Path Integral Author: Bruno Gim´enezUmbert Facultat de F´ısica, Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 645, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.∗ Abstract: The Quantum Mechanics formulation of Feynman is based on the concept of path integrals, allowing to express the quantum transition between two space-time points without using the bra and ket formalism in the Hilbert space. A particular advantage of this approach is the ability to provide an intuitive representation of the classical limit of Quantum Mechanics. The practical importance of path integral formalism is being a powerful tool to solve quantum problems where the analytic solution of the Schr¨odingerequation is unknown. For this last type of physical systems, the path integrals can be calculated with the help of numerical integration methods suitable for implementation on a computer. Thus, they provide the development of arbitrarily accurate solutions. This is particularly important for the numerical simulation of strong interactions (QCD) which cannot be solved by a perturbative treatment. This thesis will focus on numerical techniques to calculate path integral on some physical systems of interest. I. INTRODUCTION [1]. In the first section of our writeup, we introduce the basic concepts of path integral and numerical simulation. Feynman's space-time approach based on path inte- Next, we discuss some specific examples such as the har- grals is not too convenient for attacking practical prob- monic oscillator. lems in non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Even for the simple harmonic oscillator it is rather cumbersome to evaluate explicitly the relevant path integral. However, II. QUANTUM MECHANICS BY PATH INTEGRAL his approach is extremely gratifying from a conceptual point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • Observables in Inhomogeneous Ground States at Large Global Charge
    IPMU18-0069 Observables in Inhomogeneous Ground States at Large Global Charge Simeon Hellerman1, Nozomu Kobayashi1,2, Shunsuke Maeda1,2, and Masataka Watanabe1,2 1Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI),The University of Tokyo Institutes for Advanced Study, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan 2Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 133-0022, Japan Abstract As a sequel to previous work, we extend the study of the ground state configu- ration of the D = 3, Wilson-Fisher conformal O(4) model. In this work, we prove that for generic ratios of two charge densities, ρ1=ρ2, the ground-state configuration is inhomogeneous and that the inhomogeneity expresses itself towards longer spatial periods. This is the direct extension of the similar statements we previously made for ρ =ρ 1. We also compute, at fixed set of charges, ρ ; ρ , the ground state en- 1 2 1 2 ergy and the two-point function(s) associated with this inhomogeneous configuration 3=2 on the torus. The ground state energy was found to scale (ρ1 + ρ2) , as dictated by dimensional analysis and similarly to the case of the O(2) model. Unlike the case of the O(2) model, the ground also strongly violates cluster decomposition in the large-volume, fixed-density limit, with a two-point function that is negative definite at antipodal points of the torus at leading order at large charge. arXiv:1804.06495v1 [hep-th] 17 Apr 2018 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Goldstone counting and the (in)homogeneity of large-charge ground states5 1 A comment on helical symmetries and chemical potentials .
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension
    Solved Problems on Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension Charles Asman, Adam Monahan and Malcolm McMillan Department of Physics and Astronomy University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Fall 1999; revised 2011 by Malcolm McMillan Given here are solutions to 15 problems on Quantum Mechanics in one dimension. The solutions were used as a learning-tool for students in the introductory undergraduate course Physics 200 Relativity and Quanta given by Malcolm McMillan at UBC during the 1998 and 1999 Winter Sessions. The solutions were prepared in collaboration with Charles Asman and Adam Monaham who were graduate students in the Department of Physics at the time. The problems are from Chapter 5 Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension of the course text Modern Physics by Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses and Curt A. Moyer, Saunders College Publishing, 2nd ed., (1997). Planck's Constant and the Speed of Light. When solving numerical problems in Quantum Mechanics it is useful to note that the product of Planck's constant h = 6:6261 × 10−34 J s (1) and the speed of light c = 2:9979 × 108 m s−1 (2) is hc = 1239:8 eV nm = 1239:8 keV pm = 1239:8 MeV fm (3) where eV = 1:6022 × 10−19 J (4) Also, ~c = 197:32 eV nm = 197:32 keV pm = 197:32 MeV fm (5) where ~ = h=2π. Wave Function for a Free Particle Problem 5.3, page 224 A free electron has wave function Ψ(x; t) = sin(kx − !t) (6) •Determine the electron's de Broglie wavelength, momentum, kinetic energy and speed when k = 50 nm−1.
    [Show full text]
  • 22.51 Course Notes, Chapter 9: Harmonic Oscillator
    9. Harmonic Oscillator 9.1 Harmonic Oscillator 9.1.1 Classical harmonic oscillator and h.o. model 9.1.2 Oscillator Hamiltonian: Position and momentum operators 9.1.3 Position representation 9.1.4 Heisenberg picture 9.1.5 Schr¨odinger picture 9.2 Uncertainty relationships 9.3 Coherent States 9.3.1 Expansion in terms of number states 9.3.2 Non-Orthogonality 9.3.3 Uncertainty relationships 9.3.4 X-representation 9.4 Phonons 9.4.1 Harmonic oscillator model for a crystal 9.4.2 Phonons as normal modes of the lattice vibration 9.4.3 Thermal energy density and Specific Heat 9.1 Harmonic Oscillator We have considered up to this moment only systems with a finite number of energy levels; we are now going to consider a system with an infinite number of energy levels: the quantum harmonic oscillator (h.o.). The quantum h.o. is a model that describes systems with a characteristic energy spectrum, given by a ladder of evenly spaced energy levels. The energy difference between two consecutive levels is ∆E. The number of levels is infinite, but there must exist a minimum energy, since the energy must always be positive. Given this spectrum, we expect the Hamiltonian will have the form 1 n = n + ~ω n , H | i 2 | i where each level in the ladder is identified by a number n. The name of the model is due to the analogy with characteristics of classical h.o., which we will review first. 9.1.1 Classical harmonic oscillator and h.o.
    [Show full text]